Maybe this has already come up, but I can’t say I’m terribly impressed by Mr. Anderson’s article. He makes a number of claims without bothering to present any evidence to support them - the break-in must have been financed by American lobbyists because it was expensive (how expensive is it to pull off a hack? It’s more a matter of motivation than money) and then goes on to blame foreign governments because of it’s “sophistication,” without explaining what, exactly entails sophistication and why such an attribute would only be available to governments.

The whole thing seems rather breathless, at best. At worst, we have downright troubling statements like

“It was a sophisticated and expensive operation. In terms of the expense, there is the American lobby system, which is a very likely source of finance. Right now, the American lobbyists are a very likely source of finance for this, so the finger must point to them,” he said.

Er…you speculatively raise the possibility that some nebulous American lobbying group was involved, without putting forward anything to support that claim, then quickly leap to the position that “the finger must point to them.” Why, exactly? You didn’t even bother to make any case at all that they were even involved, other than imagining it, but somehow that is enough to go into a finger-pointing Pod Person shriek?

Ugh. When is this guy going to start passing out torches and pitchforks?

I’d be more than willing to believe that Russia or China had a hand in this, because there’s good circumstantial evidence to support it, if not actual primary evidence. Both would benefit from discrediting the CRU, and both have ready access to the expertise necessary to conduct such a hack, with China ahead by quite a lot by a good distance, and with an extensive history of such activities (see “Google”). But those observations and a couple of bucks will get you a cup of overpriced coffee. How about presenting some actual, tangible evidence, instead of gesticulating wildly?

The IT-Networks account is no better, coming to a foregone conclusion despite (to it’s credit) presenting the views of many who found no such bogeyman. I had hoped that, perhaps, they had been directly involved in the investigation into the break-in, but no such luck; it’s just another blog, sifting through the Internet’s stream of never-ending dross, picking out the juicy gobbets that suit the author’s predisposition.

Apparently, journalism is dead, at least on the Web. Very disappointing, because it certainly looks like there’s a story here, somewhere, were anyone interested in actually pursuing it.